It shouldn’t really come as a surprise that the PGA Tour, despite its initial objections, has decided to comply with the recent ban on anchored putting imposed by the USGA and R&A.

The tour had to at least give the perception that it supported players who have been using the anchored stroke for years in the event of any litigation that could be launched by Tim Clark, Carl Pettersson or others. That’s still a possibility.

However, the tour really didn’t want to be seen as the bad guy in two sets of rules being played around the world, with anchoring out at the British Open, but allowed at the PGA Championship, for instance.

Monday’s announcement removes Golf Canada from a potentially awkward situation with it having a spot on the rules committee that first introduced the anchoring proposal, but at the same time, running a PGA Tour event in the RBC Canadian Open that might have allowed anchoring.

That’s typical of the type of confusion that would have reigned had the tour and the PGA of America chosen to not abide by the anchoring ban.

Live to fight another day seems to be the credo projected by the tour and PGA of America, both jointly adding a strong recommendation that the ban not take effect until 2024 for recreational golfers. It’s scheduled to kick in Jan. 1, 2016 for everybody.

Both the tour and the PGA of America will play up the fact that they have compromised on this controversial issue, which puts the ball back into the USGA’s and R&A’s court to use a term from another sport.

Are the governing associations of golf willing to compromise, as well? It’s your move, USGA and R&A, two organizations that have been perceived to be uncaring about recreational golf.

Remaining inflexible on the start date for recreational players will only emphasize that perception, not that it matters to the actual rec players themselves, the majority of which don’t know or care about what the USGA or R&A have to say about their games.

Because of that, the anchoring ban will have minimal effect on growth of the game, despite what some are saying, and the extra eight years that the tour and PGA of America are proposing will only make for an easier transition.

What is more concerning is the arbitrary nature in which this ban came about, especially once players began winning majors with the long putters associated with anchoring. If this was such a problem, why wasn’t it dealt with years ago?

Add to that other arbitrary and controversial equipment rulings that the governing associations have brought down over the years and it all begins to erode the traditional influence that they have enjoyed over the years.

It was interesting to note that PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem added this caveat to the compromise announced on Monday.

“Although the board has elected to follow the USGA in this case at the elite level, it continues to be mindful of its responsibility to review future rule changes that might be adopted by the USGA in order to determine whether they should apply to PGA Tour competitions,” said Finchem.

“It is not inconceivable that there may come a time in the future when the Policy Board determines that a rule adopted by the USGA, including in the area of equipment, may not be in the best interests of the PGA Tour and that a local rule eliminating or modifying such a USGA rule may be appropriate,” he said.

Finchem then made nice by adding that the USGA has assured him that there will be an “open and effective communication process on a number of levels with the decision-makers at the USGA.”

In a statement on the PGA of America website, association president Ted Bishop offered similar thoughts.

“The PGA of America hopes that, in the future, the rules-making process will be more open and transparent, as well as interactive, when it comes to how changes in the Rules of Golf can possibly impact participation in the game,” said Bishop.

That’s what the anchoring proposal, with its 90-day comment period, was supposed to be, but it turned ugly when R&A chief Peter Dawson accused Bishop of grandstanding during a process in which lobbying should be expected.

The message was that, despite its objections, the PGA of America should have just gone along with what the governing associations, which goes against the spirit of openness that Bishop mentioned in his statement.

There’s little doubt that an independent committee is needed, but its reasoning for introducing new rules needs to be above suspicion, which it wasn’t in the case of anchored putting.

Similar accusations have been made over the years by those affected by USGA/R&A decisions.

This time, you get the feeling they mean it when they say they want more say in such matters.

Putter debacle putts golf's flaws in spotlight

It shouldn’t really come as a surprise that the PGA Tour, despite its initial objections, has decided to comply with the recent ban on anchored putting imposed by the USGA and R&A.

The tour had to at least give the perception that it supported players who have been using the anchored stroke for years in the event of any litigation that could be launched by Tim Clark, Carl Pettersson or others. That’s still a possibility.

However, the tour really didn’t want to be seen as the bad guy in two sets of rules being played around the world, with anchoring out at the British Open, but allowed at the PGA Championship, for instance.

Monday’s announcement removes Golf Canada from a potentially awkward situation with it having a spot on the rules committee that first introduced the anchoring proposal, but at the same time, running a PGA Tour event in the RBC Canadian Open that might have allowed anchoring.